Summary for Policymakers: The Connolley Problem

The latest news about efforts of Attorneys General using racketeering laws to prosecute “climate change deniers” is that their subpoena list of people and entities corresponding with Exxon matches a list of people and entities found at Greenpeace’s ExxonSecrets web site. Since I’ve spent the last 6+ years digging into the smear of skeptic climate scientists and who is behind the smear, I’m not surprised at all. Today I offer this post as a “Summary for Policymakers” regarding my series of seven prior blog posts about a smear effort which took place back in 2007 that is a case study for examining other prior and current industry corruption accusations against skeptic climate scientists. Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 7: Cancerous Greenpeace / Desmogblog / Gelbspan Stuff

In my prior post linking to my 4/22 American Thinker article about the very current efforts to use racketeering laws to prosecute Exxon for misinforming people about the certainty of man-caused global warming, I spoke of finding the ‘usual suspects’ behind the accusation. One of those names is seen again in this post. Basically, Dave Rado’s 2007 complaint over the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle” is plagued with exactly the same fatal fault as any other past or present narrative about the certainty of catastrophic man-caused global warming: its authors offer little more than science claims contradicting material expressed by skeptic climate scientists, and they abysmally fail to provide evidence that those skeptics knowingly lie about their positions under a monetary arrangement with industry people. Worse, the Ofcom complaint’s reliance on highly suspect sources to make the latter insinuation only undermines the overall intent of the complaint. Today, an examination of those sources for the accusation. Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 6: Lahsen’s Spice Girls

Even though this series of blog posts concerns a prominent complaint filed in 2007 against the UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle,”  my objective is to show how a thorough analysis of any given accusation about skeptic climate scientists being ‘paid industry money to lie’ shatters the accusation to bits no matter where the hammer strikes. Meaning, current efforts to use racketeering laws as a means to prosecute “climate change deniers.”

Today, an examination of a single-sentence claim within the complaint about fabricated names in the Oregon Petition Project (a claim widely repeated to this day). The sentence should be devastating proof of how the petition is discredited …… Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 5: The Redundant Gelbspan/Lancaster Reference

Citing irrelevant material as a means to question the credibility of an global warming expert’s science viewpoints is fundamentally unwise, particularly when the individual making the citation commits an inexcusable error in the process. But the credibility problem worsens when that person takes on the appearance of trying to inflate the number of sources for the irrelevant material, with a pair of ‘corroborations’ where one of them only cites the identical original source while the other only opens up a Pandora’s Box about the entire situation surrounding the – let me emphasize – irrelevant material. Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 4: The Wunsch/RealClimate Thing

If there is one overriding trait among believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming, it is how their narratives to keep the issue alive depend on the public accepting everything surrounding their assertions without question. The science is settled, no need to listen to skeptic scientists because those scientists are corrupt industry shills. Problem is, when these narratives are examined in fine detail, they unravel. In this “Connolley Problem” series of posts, I’ve already pointed out suspect detail omissions (parts 1 and 2) and the suspect time span (part 3), of a supposed concerned citizen’s official complaint over a 2007 UK global warming video featuring skeptic climate scientists. Today, one more post about the suspect appearance surrounding this concerned citizen’s email to a person appearing in the video – and its tie-in to William Connolley. Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 2: Connolley who?

In part 1 of this series, I pointed out how self-described ‘concerned citizen‘ Dave Rado left out a fairly important detail in telling the story of his consultation with William Connolley about filing an complaint concerning alleged bias in the 2007 UK Channel Four Television Corporation video “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” Rest assured, Rado’s enslavement to Ross Gelbspan’s ‘industry-funded skeptic climate scientists’ accusation will come up in a later post, but today’s post is a necessary setup for it. Continue reading

The Connolley Problem, pt 1: Call in the Cavalry

Back in the early spring of 2007, believers of catastrophic man-caused global warming were no doubt quite happy with Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” movie, Ross Gelbspan’s books, prominent pro-global warming blogs, mainstream media outlets, and others who gave essentially no fair play to the presentation of detailed climate assessments from skeptic climate scientists. But then came the announcement in the UK about a video to be broadcast March 8, 2007 on their Channel 4 called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”, which was met with UK media scorn before it was seen, not once (full text here) but twice in the same manner (full text here). But unlike the arenas where the other material was presented (Gore’s movie encountered a UK lawsuit), the opportunity to inflict a major hit against the video existed via the UK’s communications regulator (Ofcom), but only if you called in the cavalry to do so. Not to inflict a scientific wound, however, but one via character assassination. One that ends up being a case study of how any given corruption accusation lodged against skeptic climate scientists is separated from Ross Gelbspan by three degrees or less. Continue reading